P14031: Jib Transfer Bench Matt Brunelle Nicole Conway Mike - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
p14031 jib transfer bench
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

P14031: Jib Transfer Bench Matt Brunelle Nicole Conway Mike - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nov 04, 2022 290 likes •745 views

System Design Part 1 P14031: Jib Transfer Bench Matt Brunelle Nicole Conway Mike Kennedy Katy Wurman 1 Agenda Tuesday Project Management Discussion Problem Statement and Background o Customer Requirements & Engineering

slide-1
SLIDE 1

P14031: Jib Transfer Bench

Matt Brunelle Nicole Conway Mike Kennedy Katy Wurman

System Design – Part 1

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Agenda

  • Tuesday – Project Management Discussion
  • Problem Statement and Background
  • Customer Requirements & Engineering Requirements
  • House of Quality
  • Functional Decomposition
  • Risk Assessment
  • Test Plans
  • Project Schedule
  • Thursday – Design/Concept Discussion
  • Problem Statement & Team Introduction
  • Benchmarking
  • Concept Generation
  • Pugh Analysis & Concept Selection
  • Feasibility Analysis
  • Customer Feedback

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Team Introduction and Roles

Member Major Role

Matthew Brunelle Mechanical Engineer Engineer Nicole Conway Mechanical Engineer Engineer Michael Kennedy Mechanical Engineer Engineer Katy Wurman Industrial Engineer Project Leader 3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

P14031 Problem Statement

  • Current State
  • A jib transfer bench was created in Spring 2013 (P13031) that is heavy,

expensive, labor-intensive to assemble, and accommodating of a strict size constraint present at the time.

  • Desired State
  • A jib transfer bench that enables a jib trimmer to move transversely across the

width of the sailboat, without the use of their legs or core muscles.

  • Project Goals
  • A fully-functional prototype that is:
  • lighter
  • cheaper
  • easier to assemble and manufacture
  • Constraints
  • Designed for use with the Sonar class of sailboats
  • Completely mechanical solution
  • Designed for ease of reproducibility
  • Cannot require alteration of the boat or cause damage

4

1-page Project Summary (EDGE)

slide-5
SLIDE 5
  • Piers Park Sailing Center
  • Caitlyn Connolly, Adaptive Recreation Director
  • Staff and Volunteers at Piers Park
  • Disabled sailors or potential sailors
  • RIT
  • MSD team

5

Stakeholders

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Customer Reqt # Importance Description CR1 1 Make it easier for the jib trimmer to move between port and starboard CR2 2 Decrease the time required for the jib trimmer to move between port and starboard (compared to if they have no use of their legs and limited core strength without an assistive device) CR3 1 Lightweight design CR4 3 Eliminate the need for the jib trimmer to make contact with the floor of the boat while moving between port and starboard CR5 1 Provide jib trimmer access to the jib lines CR6 1 Design is an entirely mechanical solution CR7 2 Normal entry and exit from device is easy CR8 1 Device is safe in emergency CR9 1 Provide support for core (possibly legs) CR10 2 Device is easy to install CR11 1 Corrosion resistance CR12 1 Device does not hinder the ability to see/observe surroundings (people, conditions, boats) CR13 1 Device is safe to operate/use around all people in the boat CR14 2 Design has minimal manufacturing time of components (custom parts) CR15 1 Machining minimizes the use of specialized equipment CR16 1 Device cost is the same or less than the current design CR17 2 Seat should accommodate multiple body types CR18 1 Device must fit in the Sonar class of sailboat

Importance Scale: 1 = High Priority, 2 = Medium Priority, 3 = Low Priority

Customer Requirements - Old

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Importance Scale: 1 = High Priority, 2 = Medium Priority, 3 = Low Priority

7

Customer Requirements - New

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Engineering Requirements - Old

CR# Customer Requirements Metrics Direction Units Marginal Target CR1 Make it easier for the jib trimmer to move between port and starboard Maximum force required to traverse the width of the boat ↓ lbs of force CR2 Decrease the time required for the jib trimmer to move between port and starboard (compared to if they have no use of their legs and limited core strength without an assistive device) Transfer time between port and starboard ↓ Seconds 5 2 CR3 Lightweight design Total weight of device ↓ Pounds 100 50 CR4 Eliminate the need for the jib trimmer to make contact with the floor of the boat while moving between port and starboard Is contact required? Binary Yes/No

  • No

CR5 Provide jib trimmer access to the jib lines Are lines accessible? Binary Yes/No

  • Yes

User's reach distance to access lines ↓ Inches 25 15 CR6 Design is an entirely mechanical solution Does the design only contain mechanical parts? Binary Yes/No

  • Yes

CR7 Normal entry and exit from device is easy Time to get into seat ↓ Minutes 5 2 Time to get out of seat ↓ Minutes 5 2 CR8 Device is safe in emergency Time to release from device (in case of Emergency) ↓ Seconds 5 2 CR9 Provide support for core (possibly legs) Deivce's weight capacity (at upright seated position) ↑ Pounds 220 265 CR10 Device is easy to install Time to install ↓ Minutes 20 5 CR11 Corrosion resistance Are all components chosen for corrosion resistant properties? Binary Yes/No

  • Yes

CR12 Device does not hinder the ability to see/observe surroundings (people, conditions, boats) Does the device hinder the crew's ability to

  • perate the boat?

Binary Yes/No

  • No

User's rotation in device (to each side) ↑ Degrees +/- 30 +/- 45 CR13 Device is safe to operate/use around all people in the boat Vertical distance between seat and boom ↑ Inches 33 38 CR14 Design has minimal manufacturing time of components (custom parts) Percentage of custom parts used in design (custom parts cannot be purchased 'off-the- shelf' in a store or online) ↓ Percentage 15 5 CR15 Machining minimizes the use of specialized equipment Percentage of custom parts used in design (custom parts cannot be purchased 'off-the- shelf' in a store or online) ↓ Percentage 15 5 CR16 Device cost is the same or less than the current design Total cost to manufacture ↓ Dollars CR17 Seat should accommodate multiple body types % of users tested who find seat "comfortable" ↑ Percentage 60 75 CR18 Device must fit in the Sonar class of sailboat Does device fit? Binary Yes/No

  • Yes

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Engineering Requirements - New

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

House of Quality

Direction of Improvement: Maximize (↑), Minimize (↓), Target (X) ↓ ↓ X ↓ X X ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ X ↓ ↓ ↑ X ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ X

Customer Need Category Customer Requirement Number Customer Weights

Engineering Metrics Customer Needs

Transfer time User reach distance to jib lines Does design only contain mechanical parts? Distance between existing bench and seat Does design require boat modification? Is fixture permanently fastened to boat? Weight of Device Number of potential pinch points Unobstructed field of view Time to release device from boat (in emergency) Extremities in safe position? Time to get into seat Time to get out of seat Weight capacity Are all components chosen for corrosion resistant properties? Time to install Number of installation steps Degree of rotation Vertical distance between seat and boom Percentage of custom parts used in design Time to remove device from boat Steps to uninstall device % of users who find seat "comfortable" Secure fit in Sonar Jib Trimmer CR 1 1 Move between port and starboard (for weight distribution) 9 3 3 CR 2 1 Trim jib lines 9 3 CR 3 2 Can be used for racing 9 9 9 9 3 CR 4 1 Safe for user 1 1 3 9 3 3 1 CR 5 1 Safe for crew 1 3 1 CR 6 1 Support the user 1 3 3 CR 7 2 Typical entry/exit is easy 9 9 Piers Park CR 8 1 Easy to assemble 3 1 CR 9 2 Volunteers can install/uninstall without extensive training 1 1 3 9 3 9 CR 10 1 Does not designate a specific boat for use solely with device 9 1 1 1 3 1 CR 11 2 Easy to reproduce 1 9 CR 12 2 Low cost 1 1 9 CR 13 2 Can be used with wide range of users 3 CR 14 1 Works specifically in Sonar hull 9 CR 15 1 Does not damage boat 9 3 1 1

CR 16 1 Does not require boat modification 9 3 1 CR 17 1 Can be used in salt-water environment 9

Units

Sec in Yes/ No mm Yes/ No Yes/ No lbs # % Sec TBD Sec Min lbs Yes/N

  • Min

# Deg. In % Sec # % Yes/ No

Target Values

2 15 Yes Min. No No 50 100 2

  • 2

2 265 Yes 5

5 +/-45 38

5 5 5 75 Yes

Raw score

20 28 9 9 45 39 14 9 6 18 12 9 9 25 2 5 11 12 6 20 9 11 3 26

Relative Weight

6% 8% 3% 3% 13% 11% 4% 3% 2% 5% 3% 3% 3% 7% 1% 1% 3% 3% 2% 6% 3% 3% 1% 7%

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Highest Overall Importance ER:

11

  • Design complies with ISAF/IFDS

requirements

  • Provide user access to jib lines
  • Device is secure in Sonar boat
  • Device is easy to install
  • Device is lightweight
  • Device is safe in an emergency
  • Maximizing the range of movement
  • Minimizing the transfer time

between port and starboard

Full HOQ on EDGE

Pareto Analysis

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Functional Decomposition

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Functional Decomposition

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Functional Decomposition

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Risk Number Risk Cause (why it happens) Effects Severity Probability Hazard Score Actions to reduce failure mode 1 Track collapse Unreliable stress analysis Potential injury 3 1 3 Double check stress analysis & increase factor of safety 2 Customer does not like some parts of the design Mis-interpreted customer requirements Device is not used by the customer 2 1 2 Keep customer informed throughout the design process, seeking feedback and checking design with customer 3 System damages boat Device has sharp corners Unhappy boat owner 2 1 2 Break edges of all components 4 Team becomes unproductive Incompatible personalities Incomplete/unreasonable project 3 1 3 Discuss issues with group/advisor 5 Environmental Deterioration Weather Device no longer useable 1 3 3 Use cover when in storage/use appropriate materials 6 Improperly secured in boat Improperly constrained Unsafe for user to use (device may fall out) 3 1 3 Properly model boat’s inside dimensions Poor install Unsafe for user to use 2 2 4 Clear install instructions 7 Device is overweight Overdesigned components Unreasonable expectations Installation team becomes frustrated/injured Unable to use in races 1 2 2 Select light materials Keep weight in mind while designing 8 Person does not fit in device comfortably Device does not accomodate wide enough range of body types User is uncomfortable and may choose to not use the device 1 2 2 Ensure device is ergonomically designed

15

Risk Analysis

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Risk Number Risk Cause (why it happens) Effects Severity Probability Hazard Score Actions to reduce failure mode 9 Device does not fit in boat Improper initial sonar measurments Unusable device 2 1 2 Measure twice Improper tolerancing Unusable device 2 1 2 Measure several boats 10 Cannot access jib lines Poor design Unusable device 3 1 3 Design with anthropometric data 11 Boom impacts user's head Seat is too high Potential injury 2 2 4 Maximize the possible distance between boom and seat 12 User has poor visibility Large vertical footprint Unsafe for user 2 1 2 Small vertical profile 13 Does not comply with ISAF/IFDS regulations Distance between bench and device seat is more than 200mm Device is permanently fastened or requires modification of the boat Device does contains non- mechanical compon. Device cannot be used in races 2 2 4 Keep regulations in mind while designing the system (Mechanical solution, Non-permanent install, No modifications) 14 Complicated construction Lots of manufacturing time Decreased Reproducibility 1 1 1 Minimize the number of parts Lots of custom parts High cost 1 2 2 COTS parts 15 Complicated to install Lots of components Unhappy installers 2 1 2 Minimize subsystem breakdown Poor instructions Unhappy installers 1 1 1 Clear install instructions 16

Risk Analysis - Continued

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Minimize Time to Move Between Port and Starboard

  • Transfer time (s)
Conduct a time study with multiple users, averaging the transfer time to move between port and starboard

Access Jib Lines

  • User Reach Distance (in)
Measure the maximum distance from the seat to the jib lines. Position the seat in the furthest location from the lines and measure the distance.

Complies with ISAF/IFDS Regulations

  • Purely Mechanical Solution (binary)
No test required; verify that BOM contains no electronic components
  • Distance Between Existing Bench and Seat (200 mm)
Measure top of boat bench to maximum boat seat height
  • Does the Design Require Boat Modification (binary)
No test required; verify that the device has not modified the boat in any way (drilling into the boat, cutting the boat, etc)
  • Is the design fixture permanently installed (binary)
Test by installing the device and then uninstalling the device

Lightweight

  • Weight (lbs)
Weigh the device on the scale in the KGCOE Machine Shop (note: if the device is too large we will sum the weight of the individual components)

Device Secure in Boat

  • Secure Fit in Sonar (binary)
Details TBD - potentially install in Sonar and apply force in order to shift the device from the secured position. Amount of force and location TBD.

Minimize Pinch Points

  • Number of Pinch Points (count)
Activity hazard analysis - ergonomic analysis on safety
  • f device for user (specifically the potential for the user
to become injured from moving components)

Able to See Surroundings

  • Unobstructed Field of View (%)
  • Detailed testing TBD - potentially ask a range of users to sit in
the device and estimate the percentage of their view that is
  • unobstructed. (note: This is a subjective test and needs to be
brainstormed further to see if another test is more suitable, or if the metric for the function needs to be changed)

Safe In Emergency

  • Boat Release Time (s)
  • Conduct a time study, and average the time from initiating e-
release mechanism to actual release of device, over multiple
  • trials. Specific number of trials TBD

Secure Limbs that the User Can’t Control Themselves

  • Secure someone in boat and test for potential injuries
  • Test different heel angles (exact angles TBD) and see if the
user’s limbs remain secure in the device.

Minimize Entry Time

  • Time to get out of Seat (s)
  • Conduct a time study with multiple users, averaging the time it
takes for users to correctly position and secure themselves in the seat

Minimize Exit Time

  • Time to get into Seat (s)
  • Conduct a time study with multiple users, averaging the time it
takes for users to correctly release themselves from the seat

Maximize Weight Capacity

  • Weight Capacity (lbs)
  • Calculate the weight capacity for the design using stress
analysis
  • Validate the calculations by placing target weight on the seat
  • The device passes the test if it is able to hold the weight for 10
minutes

Corrosion Resistance

  • Components chosen for corrosion resistance (binary)
  • Specific corrosion testing- TBD

Easy to Install

  • Time to Install (s)
  • Conduct a time study with multiple users, averaging the time it
takes for two individuals to properly install the device in the Sonar.
  • These individuals will not have any knowledge of the device, in
  • rder to represent the volunteers at Pier’s Park who may have
no existing knowledge of the device
  • Number of Installation Steps (count)
  • Count the number of steps in the completed installation
manual.
  • Note: The assumption is a device with a fewer number of steps
will be easier for the user to install in the sailboat

Maximize Range of Movement

  • Degree of Rotation (deg.)
  • Position the device at the center of the sailboat (equidistant
from port and starboard) and measure the maximum angle of rotation from initial seat centerline (facing forward).

Minimize Chance of Boom/Head Collision

  • Vertical Distance between boom and seat (in)
  • Measure distance between minimum boom height and
maximum seat height

Machining Minimizes the use of Specialized Equipment

  • Percentage of Custom Parts in Design (%)
  • Count number of parts that require specialized parts to
manufacture

Design has Minimal Manufacturing Time of Components

  • Percentage of Custom Parts in Design (%)
  • Count number of parts that require modification/manufacturing
before assembly

Easy to Remove Device From Boat

  • Time to Remove (min)
  • Conduct a time study with multiple users, averaging the time it
takes for two individuals to properly uninstall the device in the Sonar.
  • These individuals will not have any knowledge of the device, in
  • rder to represent the volunteers at Pier’s Park who may have no
existing knowledge of the device.
  • Steps to Uninstall Device
  • Count the number of steps in the completed installation manual
(the manual will contain steps to properly install and uninstall the device)
  • Note: The assumption is a device with a fewer number of steps
will be easier for the user to uninstall from the sailboat

Can Accommodate Multiple Body Types

  • Percent of Users Who Find Seat Comfortable
  • Survey a minimum of 30 people and ask to rate relative comfort

Design to Sonar Dimensions and Tolerances

  • Secure fit in Sonar (binary)
  • See ER #5

Test Plans

Link to full test plan on EDGE

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Link to full test plan on EDGE

Test Number Engineering Requirement Engineering Metric Test Plan 4 Lightweight Weight (lbs) Weigh the device on the scale in the KGCOE Machine Shop 5 Device Secure in Sailboat Secure Fit in Sonar (binary) Install in Sonar and apply force in order to shift the device from the secured

  • position. Amount of force and

location TBD 7 Able to See Surroundings Unobstructed Field of View (%) Ask a range of users to sit in the device and estimate the percentage of their view that is unobstructed

18

Test Plans

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Test Plans - Continued

Link to full test plan on EDGE

Test Number Engineering Requirement Engineering Metric Test Plan

15 Maximize Range

  • f Movement

Degrees of Rotation (degrees) Position the device at the center of the sailboat (equidistant from port and starboard) and measure the maximum angle of rotation from initial seat centerline (facing forward) 19 Easy to Remove Device Time to Uninstall (min) Conduct a time study with multiple users, averaging the time it takes for two individuals to properly uninstall the device in the Sonar. These individuals will not have any knowledge of the device, in order to represent the volunteers at Pier’s Park who may have no existing knowledge of the device. Number of Installation Steps Count the number of steps in the completed installation manual (the manual will contain steps to properly install and uninstall the device)

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Project Schedule

Task Description Planned Start Planned End Planned Duration Actual Start Actual End Actual Duration Longer than planned? If yes, why?

Detailed Risk Assessment 10/1/2013 10/3/2013 2 1 NO Functional Decomposition 9/16/2013 9/16/2013 1 9/17/2013 9/19/2013 2 YES team found improvements for fn decomposition after further discussion and allotted more meeting time to fn decomp development Morphological Analysis 9/16/2013 9/16/2013 1 9/18/2013 9/19/2013 1 NO Concept Generation 9/17/2013 9/30/2013 13 9/18/2013 9/29/2013 11 NO Design Sketches 9/17/2013 9/30/2013 13 9/17/2013 9/29/2013 12 NO Feasibility Analysis 9/27/2013 9/30/2013 3 9/30/2013 9/30/2013 1 NO Pugh Matrix 10/1/2013 10/1/2013 1 9/24/2013 9/26/2013 2 YES team divided the full system into different components, each with their own Pugh analysis. The discussion about criteria and changing the datums took longer than expected Develop Test Plans 9/30/2013 10/2/2013 2 9/27/2013 9/27/2013 1 NO System Level Design Presentation 10/3/2013 10/3/2013 1 10/3/2013 10/5/2013 2 YES Format of presentations was split across two days to allow the customers to attend Phase 2 Peer Reviews 10/3/2013 10/3/2013 1 10/3/2013 10/5/2013 2 YES Complete System Level Phase Review 10/3/2013 10/3/2013 1 10/3/2013 10/5/2013 2 YES

20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

http://photo.americascup.com/25-09-2013-San-Francisco-USA-CA-34th-America-s-Cup-,en,igf1724p96n53.html

Questions?

slide-24
SLIDE 24

P14031: Jib Transfer Bench

Matt Brunelle Nicole Conway Mike Kennedy Katy Wurman

System Design – Part 2

24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Agenda

  • Tuesday – Project Management Discussion
  • Problem Statement and Background
  • Customer Requirements & Engineering Requirements
  • House of Quality
  • Functional Decomposition
  • Risk Assessment
  • Test Plans
  • Project Schedule
  • Thursday – Design/Concept Discussion
  • Problem Statement & Team Introduction
  • Benchmarking
  • Concept Generation
  • Pugh Analysis & Concept Selection
  • Feasibility Analysis
  • Customer Feedback

25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Team Introduction and Roles

Member Major Role

Matthew Brunelle Mechanical Engineer Engineer Nicole Conway Mechanical Engineer Engineer Michael Kennedy Mechanical Engineer Engineer Katy Wurman Industrial Engineer Project Leader 26

slide-27
SLIDE 27

P14031 Problem Statement

  • Current State
  • A jib transfer bench was created in Spring 2013 (P13031) that is heavy,

expensive, labor-intensive to assemble, and accommodating of a strict size constraint present at the time.

  • Desired State
  • A jib transfer bench that enables a jib trimmer to move transversely across the

width of the sailboat, without the use of their legs or core muscles.

  • Project Goals
  • A fully-functional prototype that is:
  • lighter
  • cheaper
  • easier to assemble and manufacture
  • Constraints
  • Designed for use with the Sonar class of sailboats
  • Completely mechanical solution
  • Designed for ease of reproducibility
  • Cannot require alteration of the boat or cause damage

27

1-page Project Summary (EDGE)

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Benchmarking

28 Vespoli Tracks Stability Bar Grigri

EDGE Site

Auto Belay Boat Winch Wheelchair Torso Support Slide Bench Tub Seat Anterior Trunk Support Wheelchair Harness

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Benchmarking

29 Plastique Chair Charlie Chair Jen French Bench Tractor Chair P13031 Design P12031 Captains Chair Brennan Chair P13032 Gold Medal Sailing Seat

EDGE Site

Toilet to Tub Transfer Bench

slide-30
SLIDE 30

P13031: Existing Iteration

30

  • For use with Sonar class

sailboat

  • Allows disabled people

to sail

  • 270 lb weight capacity
  • Heavy (125 lbs)
  • Labor intensive to

assemble

  • Multiple people required
  • Not ideal for small-

scale production

  • Many custom parts
slide-31
SLIDE 31

Seat Assembly Designs

31

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Criteria Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Design 4 Design 5 Original Estimated material cost

  • DATUM

Device Weight (less is better)

  • Feasibility of chair

design

  • Seat design

complexity

  • User comfort
  • +

+ + + Time to secure user +

  • Supports user

+ + + + + Secures user + + + + + COTS components

  • Field of view
  • Sum +

3 3 3 3 3 Sum - 5 6 5 7 4 Sum 0 2 1 2 3 Total

  • 2
  • 3
  • 2
  • 4
  • 1

Accept User's Cushion Secure User's Legs Secure User's Torso Chair Style Emergency Release Headrest Design 1 (Velcro chair) Velcro Velcro Velcro Standard chair Velcro No Design 2 (Lifejacket w/ racecar seat) User's weight (friction) Velcro straps Lifejacket connected to seat Racecar Knife Yes Design 3 (Wheelchair w/ 5pt harness) Pouch Wheelchair footrests 5-point harness Wheelchai r Pull pin No Design 4 (Racecar seat w/ straps, belts, & toe cages) Straps Straps at knees & toe cages Seatbelt Racecar Knife Yes Design 5 (Chair w/ belts & footrests) User's weight (friction) Wheelchair- style footrests Belts Standard chair Knife No

Pugh Charts – Seat Assembly

32

Pugh Charts on EDGE (Concept Selection)

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Pugh Charts – Seat Assembly

Criteria Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Design 4 Design 5 Original Estimated material cost DATUM +

  • +

+

  • Device Weight (less is

better)

  • Feasibility of chair design

+ + + + + Seat design complexity

  • +

User comfort + + + + + Time to secure user

  • Supports user

+ + + +

  • Secures user

+ + + +

  • COTS components

+ + + Field of view

  • Sum +

6 4 6 5 4 Sum - 4 4 4 2 3 Sum 0 2 3 3 Total 2 2 3 1

33

Accept User's Cushion Secure User's Legs Secure User's Torso Chair Style Emergency Release Headrest Design 1 (Velcro chair) Velcro Velcro Velcro Standard chair Velcro No Design 2 (Lifejacket w/ racecar seat) User's weight (friction) Velcro straps Lifejacket connected to seat Racecar Knife Yes Design 3 (Wheelchair w/ 5pt harness) Pouch Wheelchair footrests 5-point harness Wheelchai r Pull pin No Design 4 (Racecar seat w/ straps, belts, & toe cages) Straps Straps at knees & toe cages Seatbelt Racecar Knife Yes Design 5 (Chair w/ belts & footrests) User's weight (friction) Wheelchair- style footrests Belts Standard chair Knife No

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Lateral Seat Movement

Cantilevered Arm Curved Track Linear Track over Bench

  • x2 Track

Floor Track

34

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Pugh Charts – Lateral Seat Movement

Design 1 Linear track above the benches Design 2 Linear track on the floor between benches Design 3 Curved track above benches Design 4 Cantilevered arm Design 5 Coaster (negative x-squared) Design 6 Original (Current Design)

Criteria Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Design 4 Design 5 Design 6 Access to jib lines

  • +

+ DATUM Estimated material cost + +

  • Track complexity

+

  • +
  • Weight capacity

+

  • Device weight (less is better)

+ +

  • +

Footprint +

  • +

Linear range of movement

  • Transfer time
  • Safety (pinch points)

+

  • +

+ COTS Components + + Ease of construction +

  • +
  • Sum +

3 8 1 6 1

Sum -

2 7 3 4

Sum 0

8 1 3 2 6

Total

3 6

  • 6

3

  • 3

35

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Pugh Charts – Lateral Seat Movement

Design 1 Linear track above the benches Design 2 Linear track on the floor between benches Design 3 Curved track above benches Design 4 Cantilevered arm Design 5 Coaster (negative x-squared) Design 6 Original (Current Design)

Criteria Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Design 4 Design 5 Design 6 Access to jib lines + DATUM + +

  • +

Estimated material cost

  • Track complexity
  • +
  • Weight capacity
  • Device weight (less is better)
  • +
  • Footprint
  • +
  • Linear range of movement

+ + + + + Transfer time

  • Safety (pinch points)
  • +
  • COTS Components
  • Ease of construction
  • Sum +

2 2 6 1 2 Sum - 5 9 5 8 7 Sum 0 4 2 2 Total

  • 3
  • 7

1

  • 7
  • 5

36

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Pugh Charts – Rotational Seat Movement

Design 1 Lazy Susan (current) Design 2 Single post w/ thrust bearing Design 3 Single post and support rail

Criteria Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Estimated material cost DATUM

  • Design complexity
  • Weight capacity
  • +

Device weight (less is better) + Rotational range of movement

  • COTS Components
  • Ease of construction
  • Sum +

1 1 Sum - 4 5 Sum 0 2 1 Total

  • 3
  • 4

37

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Pugh Charts – Rotational Seat Movement

Criteria Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Estimated material cost + DATUM

  • Design complexity

+

  • Weight capacity

+ + Device weight (less is better)

  • Rotational range of movement

COTS Components +

  • Ease of construction

+

  • Sum +

5 1 Sum - 1 5 Sum 0 1 1 Total 4

  • 4

Design 1 Lazy Susan (current) Design 2 Single post w/ thrust bearing Design 3 Single post and support rail 38

slide-39
SLIDE 39

39

Movement Assist

Design 2 – Ratchet and Lever Design 1 – Block & Tackle w/ Tensioner and Cleats Design 3 – Stability Bar w/ Carabiners Design 4 – Hand Cranks (double boat winch) Design 6 – Block & Tackle w/ Tensioner and Carabiners Design 5 – Center-Mounted Crank

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Pugh Charts – Movement Assist

Criteria Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Design 4 Design 5 Design 6 Original Possibility of pinch points + + + + DATUM Time to transfer between sides

  • +
  • +

Effort to transfer between sides +

  • +
  • +

Estimated cost

  • +
  • COTS components
  • Feasibility of design

+

  • Sum +

2 1 3 2 2 1 Sum - 1 4 1 2 3 1 Sum 0 3 1 2 2 1 4 Total 1

  • 3

2

  • 1

Criteria Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Design 4 Design 5 Design 6 Original Possibility of pinch points

  • DATUM
  • Time to transfer between

sides

  • Effort to transfer between

sides +

  • +

+ + + Estimated cost +

  • +

+ COTS components +

  • +

+ + Feasibility of design

  • Sum +

3 2 1 3 3 Sum - 3 6 3 3 3 3 Sum 0 1 2 Total

  • 6
  • 1
  • 2

*** assume that the user does not have a stability bar***

Movement mechanism Locking Position Design 1 Block and tackle with tensioner Cleats Design 2 Ratchet and lever None (self locking) Design 3 Stability bar Carabiners Design 4 Hand crank (double boat winch) None (self locking) Design 5 Center mounted crank Carabiners from chair Design 6 Block and tackle with tensioner Carabiners

40

slide-41
SLIDE 41

41

Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Design 4 Design 5 Design 6

Linear track above the benches Linear track on the floor between benches Curved track above benches Cantilevered arm Coaster (negative x-squared) Original (Current Design)

=Compatible =Maybe Compatible =Incompatible Movement mechanism Locking Position Design 1 Block and tackle with tensioner Cleats Design 2 Ratchet and lever None (self locking) Design 3 Stability bar Carabiners Design 4 Hand crank (double boat winch) None (self locking) Design 5 Center mounted crank Carabiners from chair Design 6 Block and tackle with tensioner Carabiners

System Compatibility Matrix

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Design to Pursue

42

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Feasibility Analysis

43

slide-44
SLIDE 44
  • What’s more important?
  • Transfer speed

OR

  • Minimal effort to transfer
  • Is a stability bar a viable option as a movement

method?

Questions for you:

44

slide-45
SLIDE 45

45

http://photo.americascup.com/25-09-2013-San-Francisco-USA-CA-34th-America-s-Cup-,en,igf1724p96n53.html

Questions?